America complains, bitches, and moans. But when it comes to understanding politics, we tend to listen with filtered ears. Already, Americans have decided whom they want to vote for, whom they wanted to take sides with: Barack Obama or John McCain. Well, we chose, and we chose before hearing them argue in a heated debate.
Last week, Americans got to see just that. In the height of a nation-wide financial crisis, the 2008 Presidential Debate couldn’t have come at a better time. One thing that the candidates both agreed on was to bring more jobs to Americans. Their approach, on the other hand, differs immensely, like two opposing ideologies. Obama believes the root problem is due to foreclosures. McCain believes that Americans are simply spending too much. Both men want to create an oversight on spending habits and debts, an agency that’ll regulate how banks and loan companies work. Obama came up with a good notion: the government was overlooking the spending and debt that many Americans got themselves into. And McCain mentioned an idea: that “this isn’t the beginning of the end, this is the end of the beginning”
So what do these men propose to do, at the beginning of their terms? Obama wants to research the underlying issues, the root-cause, of American debt and foreclosure. He wants to make sure that people who take risks don’t lose their money. Now, wouldn’t all this research cost us more money? Surveying, polling, statistics—it all doesn’t come out of thin air. And also, shouldn’t risk-takers actually experience the risk? If they decided to put all their money into a high-tech-company-with-big-loses stock, shouldn’t they suffer for it and not the government and the taxpayers? I think I smell more taxes coming out of our paychecks; I smell less money for you.
McCain wants to create a “package,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. He wants to create loan options for failing businesses. He wants to get spending under control and veto every spending bill that comes his way. He wants accountability, and he wants to make people responsible for failing businesses. But by doing it this way, McCain is just playing the blame game, pointing fingers at a poor little scapegoat. And what exactly would these loan options for a failed businesses imply? If McCain refuses to raise taxes for the American people, then where would the money come from?
All in all, Obama is looking at a crisis solution from the bottom, McCain from the top. Obama wants to eliminate overseas outsourcing, bringing those companies in China or India back home, for the American businesses that invest on our grounds. This will force American companies to stay on American soil, creating more jobs on the market for the unemployed. Thus, he wants to make sure “whether the middle class has a fair shake.” McCain, on the other hand, wants to give tax breaks for corporations in order to compete with the rest of the world (currently, we’re charging 35% tax for corporations, while other countries charge much less, such as Ireland, where it’s at 11%). McCain believes this will lure more companies to the U.S., thus creating more jobs for you. Obama’s and McCain’s approaches on bringing companies home and on creating more jobs are greatly different, but which one will actually work?
Alongside losing money, Americans are faced with another issue concerning their healthcare. JoNel Aleccia, in an msnbc.com article, asks, “Will voters embrace John McCain's plan to tax health benefits and create credits to pay for competitive private insurance? Or will they choose Barack Obama's federally funded National Health Plan and stricter rules for providers?” This is the year in which voters will look at reforming health care plans that will concern ourselves and our families. And as Americans, we have a right to unbiasly look at both plans that our candidates propose.
A universal health plan is ideal for covering the nearly 46 million uninsured Americans. Like our European counterparts, adults, children, and the elderly alike will have access to healthcare. This is Obama’s plan. He wants to impose stricter laws against healthcare providers and implementing a shared responsibility between governments and employers. This plan deviates from what we have today, where the individual and families are responsible for providing their own healthcare.
The McCain path emphasizes this responsibility and individual choice. It follows the theory of a market-based healthcare, where healthy competition pushes our insurers and doctors to be the lowest cost plan and the best on the market. He also plans to cut the taxes taken from us that go toward government-funded health plans and move that money into a budget plan that guarantees insurance for the uninsured.
Now, I’m not going to get into the details of their plans (you can read these on your own at the candidates’ own websites). But I do want to clear some things about both sides.
Obama’s plan sounds like a great idea, particularly to those who have no access to healthcare. Our children, especially, will benefit from his proposal. Everyone, despite their age and class will no longer have to worry about the offset of high costs in the insurance and health industry. But of course, there is a downside to all this.
Where will the money come from? Democrats are notorious for raising taxes—so yes, my dear, the money will come from you. And not just from the rich, but also from the middle and lower classes (smells like communism…). Then, there’s the issue of quality healthcare. Why is it that some of the most advanced, forward-thinking hospitals and practitioners are located here, in the U.S. (and more locally, like USF, Stanford)? If a universal healthcare plan is implemented throughout the nation, then the quality of our care can suffer. One of the reasons why the cream-of-crop is located here is because private health plans provide competitive pays. Why do you think people from other countries—like Canada—fly over to California all the time to receive the best treatment available? Their healthcare at home lacks the motivated doctors that we have in our own American backyard.
On the Republican side, McCain wants to promote that individual freedom and choice so valued here in America. He wants to break the employer-based health taxes taken from our hard-earned money, and put it in a budget plan (the “guarantee access plan”) that helps the uninsured become insured. This, in turn, lightens government control over private insurers, thus giving them (the health peoples) the ease of that “healthy competition.” In theory, they are able to provide the best possible plans without the restriction of government regulations.
McCain’s tax credits to eliminate employer-based health plans may not meet the budget. He proposes that the tax credits will benefit families and individual choice. But what happens when the economy falters, like right now? This break may not meet the unexpectancy of a rising inflation possible in tomorrow’s market. It is intended to raise money for those who aren’t insured, but this intention seems short-lived. It is a temporary solution to a prolific problem. It isn’t long-term because, in essence, the money isn’t going to always be there and meet an unpredictable market-based economy. Simply put, money doesn’t grow on trees.
And when it comes to taxpayer’s money, where has most of it gone to? Most Americans claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sucked up billions over the past seven years. Obama argues that it was unnecessary, that we should’ve held more peace-talks and better communication with our allies and non-allies. McCain holds that if we didn’t go into this war, the lives of Americans would have been at stake with an increasing power structure among terrorist groups in these countries. No matter their opposing opinions, both candidates agree that the next President of the United States will end this war. It is up to us voters to determine who is more qualified to do so.
The plans proposed by McCain and Obama are two opposing, yet fresh theories; they are two plans that have its negatives and positives. As young or experienced voters alike, we need to look harder into these two theories. We need to evaluate what has and hasn’t worked in the past. The question is, which plan will match what you value the most?
The New City Ordinance: Confusion Unveiled
by Sheila López
Let’s get something straight here: in no way, shape, or form will a city jeopardize their money flow. They already have their hands in entertainment greens—the taxes and money incurred from city-owned properties and parks. So why would they issue an ordinance that’ll sever, exploit and detriment public entertainment? Why would they want to halt the very thing that gives San Jose its culture, vibe, and talent? It simply doesn’t make any sense. I’m sure art and music generates way too much money for them to fuck with it. So here’s what I’m suggesting: let’s petition the City to change their language on that draft, and let’s quit thinking it’s going to greatly challenge the integrity of events, musicians, and artists.
Most people may think the ordinance will stop music entertainment all together, that, like a promoter, artists must obtain a permit. Opponents reason that this may scare away artists or prevent them from performing because, through the ordinance, entertainers become a promoter, taking on the same responsibilities shared with someone who organizes an event.
I think this may not be the case. In the language of the ordinance, there’s a section that defines what an event promoter is not. This list includes entertainers and performers (sect. 6.62.030, B,3). Ok, fine; so we musicians and music-lovers alike are not liable for any bullshit that goes down. But the one preceding section—the one little phrase—that gets everyone so worked up is about what an event promoter is. She is someone who “is directly or indirectly responsible” for any event that she has been organizing and promoting. Indirectly? Now by whom does SJPD mean by that? Aren’t performers and entertainers indirectly involved with an event already? Aren’t musicians, in essence, always promoting their own events as well? The truth of the matter is, this section of definitions is ambiguous, broad and far too wavering that it is viewed in two or more ways. If this section was inadvertently written that way, then it’s just a matter of changing a word or two (the “indirectly). But if SJPD and the City knew that it was written this way, as though the confusion was implemented on purpose, then we have a problem.
Proof may be found in the draft. The ordinance has an Indemnification Agreement requirement (6.62.410), which suggests that the City should be legally exempt from liabilities, losses, and claims occurred during a promoted event. As “Promoter Ordinance Breakdown” (by an anonymous sender) puts it, “if something goes wrong at your event and the police came and hurt someone, [and] if that person sues the city for what they did, you would end up paying all the fees for the attorneys. Indemnification is a big deal and from what I understand, it’s illegal and unconstitutional.” Seemingly enough, this notion is an issue butting heads among the legal processes. Why should promoters be responsible for the behavior of others, including that of the SJPD? Is the police just simply covering its own ass? Well, let’s just hope that council members—or at least the majority of them—are against indemnity and will notice this piggyback of a section.
Now it’s time to look at the bigger picture. The ordinance stems from a competition between downtown nightlife and downtown living. Noises from the 10 to 2 crowd reach new housing development that lie just across the street from bars and clubs, and this has residences complaining. “We want to have a balance that enables us to keep the downtown rising in terms of residential development,” says councilman Sam Liccardo, “and at the same time maintain a vibrant nightlife.”
But how can such a balance be met? One way, as supported by the San Jose Downtown Association, is to create separate sections, an entertainment district on one side and a residential district on the other. This, in theory, should wean out the loud raucous from rowdy 18-year-olds, which bothers developers looking to attract a new, older set of clientele.
The other solution is to hold promoters and club owners responsible for whatever happens in and around their events and businesses, reducing the amount of live entertainment. In his article, “Night Life vs. Condos,” Timothy Roberts states, “the city has been using incentives to encourage developers to build residential housing in the center of the city. And now [with] some of the most expensive downtown condos, including some costing $2 million, the city is looking for ways to manage the club presence.” With the luxury of million-dollar condos at stake, it’s not wonder the City and SJPD are taking the initiative to safeguard new developments. They fear the clamor and tumult from nightlife—the factors that can scare away homebuyers—is too incontrollable for SJPD. Thus, promoters become the scapegoat, being forced the liability and fiscal responsibility that, in actuality, law enforcement should handle instead. Isn’t the police suppose to protect and serve the people? Let’s leave this job for the police, not for entertainers.
We need to ensure a proactive solution. Having licensed or permitted promoters may be a good idea, in the sense that it’ll keep bad operators from bamboozling us. However, the language of the ordinance, the vague wordiness and ambiguity, suggests more than what a promoter should be liable for (through indemnification), and it holds a musician or performer as an event promoter (through an “indirect” definition). We need to not overlook the reasons why this ordinance is being pushed by the City and SJPD. If it’s a housing issue, then surely there are other solutions, such as creating separate districts. But if it’s about money, about cleansing the downtown streets from nightlife fun, culture, and music, then we need to take the initiative to make changes to the ordinance. Read it, become well-informed, and don’t just sit there. Do something.
By: Sheila Lopez
Rap artists such as E-40, Too Short, Keak da Sneak, and San Quinn have become classic icons in the San Francisco Bay Area. Let’s not go without mentioning the legendary Mac Dre, a Vallejo rapper who was killed in a freeway shooting in Kansas City—his recognition emerged only after his death. If you tell people around the Bay how MTV labeled E-40 as “the brand new artist,” they will find themselves stunned. What will this mean for local Bay Area rap artists? And who really benefits from this: Bay Area talent or top record labels? Mainstream America is now knocking at our door to listen to our Hyphy music. But not everyone is excited; in the San Jose Mercury News, Too Short advises to young Bay Area artists “…to find ways to make money from the ‘Hyphy Movement,’ rather than letting other music companies now showing interest in the Bay Area.” Being from the Bay, we take much pride in our own availing independent record labels. Done Deal Entertainment, Thizz Entertainment, Sic Wid It Records, and Slapp Addict Productions are among Bay Area labels that can easily compete with mainstream entertainment businesses. When I asked my friends from around the Bay Area what the Hyphy Movement meant to them, I discovered a common creed. Traxamiilion from Slapp Addict Productions shares, “I think the Hyphy Movement is an embodiment of the Bay Area style and swagger, and it’s spreadin’ like wild fire, the Bay has always been trend setters in the game, and the Hyphy Movement is just one more example of it…” Traxamillion has produced many songs including Keak da Sneak’s “Super Hyphy.” The “Fool of the Bay,” Freddie Hott Sauce of BIGGOent.com says, “It’s a ball of energy from an area, the Bay Area. A style of the Bay culture. A name all Bay Area artists support.” San Jose artist Staynless shares, “I feel the Hyphy Movement is a beautiful vibe going on. It’s really bringing the Bay Area closer as a whole. And power comes in numbers, so I’m all for it…if music motivates you in any way, whether it be physical, mentally, spiritually, artistically, etc., I consider it movement music, and Hyphy is definitely movement music!” Prince Jaheem from Action Pack Entertainment stated, “I believe the Hyphy Movement is a mesh between old and new northern California culture, the youth are the energy of the movement, and the bay area elite are the muscle, money, and experience that drives the success.” Here, we see that some upcoming artists are excited about getting recognized, yet it’s only become apparent that Bay Area rap has already manifested itself in the entertainment industry, that it can be just as promising as Bad Boy Entertainment and Rocafella Records. And the only way Bay Area rap artists can preserve this, is to stay on their court and continue being trendsetters. We’ve been speaking words like “fo shizzy,” “poppin’ collas,” “off tha hook,” and “it’s all good”—words that have been plagiarized from its roots. “Hyphy is just energy” says E-40 during Tha Corner “standing on top of cars, ‘stuna’ shades, dreadlocks. We’ve been around eight years easily, but it’s just been gradually growing.” Basically, the last thing we need in the “Yay Area” is another distant rap artist copying our music, dance, and sweeping style. Listeners in the Bay Area agree that the Hyphy movement goes beyond a dance craze (as depicted by MTV and BET). It is in the Bay, where our pride flourishes. We’ve been devoting our ears to this music for so long, that finally times are changing, and recognition is rising: Bay Area rap artists has set a new rap curve with the inexplicable Hyphy Movement. As Too Short states, “…those coming up in the ‘Hyphy Movement’ to ‘go dumb’ in their dance moves and ‘go smart’ about realizing the financial opportunities from the culture they have helped created.” You heard it hear first: join the Hyphy Movement, do not allow top record labels dictate how the Bay should be, and most importantly, show off your pride by being local and staying local.
By Tracy Washington
“People should be judged on the content of the character, not the color of their skin”.
Why is it that the more often we meet people and or date, the longer and lonelier the road gets? Right when we meet someone we inevitably entertain the idea that this new romance may possibly be our last. We arm ourselves with loads of energy, hope and excitement and forge ahead in a deliberate manner towards this new found affection. I'm wondering if we're better off not dating at all. I enjoy being single. Okay, let me say this with more confidence, I ENJOY being single. Chris Rock said it best "you can be married and bored or single and lonely".
Feeling lonely at times is very natural and being intimate with ourselves keeps us from feeling lonesome. We are not self sufficient and require the affection and interaction of others in order to blossom into civilized human beings. There are currently six billion people in the world, 300 million in the USA alone. According to research, about 40% of this population is single. Now all I need is to look around me and my surroundings to see that most people I encounter are single. How is this possible? With all the resources (online dating, Starbucks or coffee shops, extended school hours for older –and single- students) available one would think hooking up is as easy as 1-2-3. “Hooking-up” is easy; it’s finding meaning in these “hook-ups” that brings us to this question: Are humans ever satisfied?
We live in a world with limited resources. Scarcity means that people want more than is available. Scarcity requires choice. This means, we must choose which desires we want to meet and which we will leave unsatisfied? What is the cost we are willing to sacrifice?
I am baffled with how easy it is to make and keep me happy and wonder why every man I meet can’t seem to get it right (give me lentil soup when I’m not feeling well and you got me). Dating today is like the real estate market, there are too many sellers and not enough serious buyers. Properties are foreclosing and opportunists are taking advantage of those who are exhausted and ready to sign over to the next jerk that makes them an offer. Don’t do it; don’t give it up that easily.
One of my favorite quotes comes from Dave Chapelle “if pu$$y were a stock it would be plummeting right now. Women are flooding the market with it…women stop giving it away so easily…let’s raise pu$$y stocks back up.” So why is it so difficult to find compatibility? Ask yourself this: what do I consider essential characteristics in my partner? What can I compromise and what can’t I live without?
I’m not ready to give in and often times feel like a seller who puts her home out on the market just to see what’s out there. She gets these “as if” offers and shoots every single one down. Her real estate agent (friends and family) ask “what the heck was wrong with that one?” But she sticks to her guns because she knows sooner or later, when the time is right she will find a buyer with the best offer and only until then will she sell. Dating is entertainment. All I’m doing is entertaining the idea or possibility of one day making the deal of a life time.